The World
Number of games in database: 25
Years covered: 1996 to 2014
Overall record: +9 -7 =9 (54.0%)* * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.

Chess games allowing for consultation are almost as old as chess itself, but only with modern technology can participants from around the globe be unified to make a group-effort of a truly large scale. In 1996, Anatoly Karpov took on the challenge of playing "the World"--i.e., a group of internet participants which included a spectrum of abilities ranging from beginner to grandmaster. Karpov won the game in only 33 moves. "The World" has taken on a number of notable players, and it has always been a good learning exercise for those who choose to participate.

The results for "the World" had been poor until January 11th, 2007, when the internet scored its first major victory: over 2500 members of Chessgames collaborated to defeat correspondence grandmaster Arno Nickel. Then, on July 7th 2007, Yury Shulman resigned his game against the Chessgames members.

On August 11, 2008, after 62 moves and over a year of play, the World (via Chessgames) defeated the 15th world correspondence champion, Gert Jan Timmerman.

OhioChessFan: <PiPi: Not sure about mixing the internet "World" team with the Chessgames community "World" team results. I think more useful would be to have two "Worlds":
The World (i)
The World (CG)
>

I agree completely that they are not the same team, as do others who have discussed it during some of our World games. The delineation of (i) and (CG) is a nice solution to the problem. I know Pogo, for instance, insists on saying she has a winning record against The World since she beat a previous incarnation not from cg.c

SpiritedReposte: I gotta think cg has the best "world" team. I was a .0001% part in the current destruction of a world class GM and it is amazing the amount of analysis you guys go through. It went from a weird nothing forced position, to a pawn sac, then victory like magic.

I don't see how a single player could win against a cg team. Around the world you guys are calculating lines looking at new variations 24/7. It would take a like minded team to beat you, or a freak genius that could make moves you guys wouldn't see 10 moves in advance. Which you guys would see anyway, and have them fully analyzed lol.

AylerKupp: <SpiritedReposte> I have calculate the chessgames.com World Team rating, several times, but most of them incorrectly since I had the wrong rating for V.Akobian for one of the games. But they would have been different at any rate, since FIDE changed its method of calculation for initial ratings as of July 1, 2014.

Here is my latest calculation after the World Team's victory over A.Naiditsch which I believe to be correct (as much as this calculation can be), using the OTB ratings for the OTB players and the correspondence rating for the correspondence players at the time that the games were played: The World vs Naiditsch, 2014.

And, in case you don't want to bother with the rating calculation method, I calculated the World Team's rating after the victory over A.Naiditsch to be 2730, resulting the World Team to be ranked as the #23 player in the world at the time of the calculation.

AylerKupp: <PinnedPiece>, <OhioChessFan> I think that it is reasonable to lump all the World Teams together. After all, even for the <chessgames.com>'s World Team, the membership in the team changes from game to game as do the players voting in each game, even though there is a core team that is relatively constant.

BadKnight: Back in the days when computer programs were relatively weaker, these centaur games was interesting to me. Human cluster would then come up with a plan and then blunder check the ideas and intricacies of the positions (to some extent, at least).

With increasing computing power nowadays, imo the sporting aspects of the game is almost lost, and computer and data optimization has become more important.

Today with the modern tools available in hands, any weak master with lots of free time and dedication and access to very strong hardware + good knowledge on the functioning of chess programs and their optimizations will outmatch any mortal strong human GM with an strong engine used primarily for blunderchecking.

This current format is just very different from chess. And I like real chess/blitz/bullet much more than this game. It is just a matter of personal preference.

sometimes if there is a forced win with humanly unfathomable 20 obscure strong engine moves, then so be it. we wont need to understand the rationale behind the moves; just double and triple check the data and reproduce it. If there is forced mate in 259 moves, then so be it. It is just the way it is.

It is best suited to strong chess player with very strong computation background.

But I still believe if a superstrong GM puts a real effort (i.e. put a team of strong analysts) then we stand no chance, as their superior chess knowledge must come victorious. But as the dedication increases, number of draws would increase. Yes I have strong reasons to believe that chess is draw with best play, and by quite a big margin.

I am a believer in draw deaths in these centaur games. Only time can tell if I am right.

AylerKupp: <<BadKnight> But I still believe if a superstrong GM puts a real effort (i.e. put a team of strong analysts) then we stand no chance, as their superior chess knowledge must come victorious.>

It certainly would be interesting to find out. All we need to do is find a superstrong GM with lots of available time who is also sufficiently motivated to devote the time needed for the effort and who is also in a good financial position to be able to obtain the necessary computer resources and hire the needed staff to support him (although the latter might not be in the spirit of the Chessgames Challenge).

It seems to me that a certain Garry Kasparov, with a reputed net worth of US $ 5,000,000, might satisfy these conditions. He might need some time off to ponder and plan his future activities given his so far unsuccessful attempts to replace either Putin or Ilyumzhinov. And no one could doubt Kasparov's determination to achieve any goals that he sets for himself.

plang: <All we need to do is find a superstrong GM with lots of available time who is also sufficiently motivated to devote the time needed for the effort and who is also in a good financial position to be able to obtain the necessary computer resources and hire the needed staff to support him (although the latter might not be in the spirit of the Chessgames Challenge).>

AylerKupp: <<plang> What would be the purpose of this? What would it prove?>

The only purpose would be amusement and/or interest, like any other chess games we play against GMs. Because, like <OhioChessFan> said, no one chess game (or even a small number of chess games) proves anything, certainly not in a statistically significant way. But if the World team defeats (or even draws) Kasparov under those circumstances then it would prove <BadKnight>'s assertion to be false, namely that if a superstrong GM puts a real effort, then the World team stands no chance.

Unless, of course, you don't consider Kasparov to satisfy the condition of being a superstrong GM.

plang: I see why the World would be interested but the suggestion that a strong GM would want to spend a lot of time and hire a suppor team to help him (her) seems unlikely. I think some GMs were attracted to the idea of trying to defeat the World (and all their computer firepower) using their superior chess knowledge without investing too much into it. That has recently proved difficult. I think GMs will be increasingly difficult to find to take part in these exercises.

BadKnight: <<AylerKupp:> It certainly would be interesting to find out. All we need to do is find a superstrong GM with lots of available time who is also sufficiently motivated to devote the time needed for the effort and who is also in a good financial position to be able to obtain the necessary computer resources and hire the needed staff to support him>>

I don't know what the result would be..i was contemplating being better at OTB chess cannot possibly put a team at a disadvantage, so a team of strong players should be better. Following the same logic, theoretically they should be at least equal to our team. Although it is a possibility that the game might be practically level in the current centaur format, as the minuscule advantage they might have might not be worth enough to convert into a full point. No matter how complex a chess game might have been, theoretically it is a finite game with a limited number of possibilities. gigantic number, yes, but finite. So it might be possible that the playing ability will be approximately leveled at centaur chess format. But that remains to be seen.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

Don't post personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.